Sponsored links

The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance

Pledge Protection Act of 2004

"...to prevent the U.S.
Supreme Court from deciding whether the words 'under God' should be
removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and leave such legal decisions
instead to state courts.

Debate was described as 'political' and 'emotionally charged,' with
Democrats accusing their GOP counterparts of debasing the
constitution. The bill, authored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) passed
247-173.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) praised the House action, telling reporters
that it was a victory for those who wish to teach youngsters about the
important role religious faith plays in American life.

'The words 'under God' are as much a part of the Pledge of Allegiance as the
flag itself,' DeLay gushed. 'Many of those opposing the bill have made no
secret of their hostility to traditional values and religion in the public
square. This law will make sure those judges can't impose their personal
prejudices on the rest of us.'

DeLay added that 'State courts should be free to determine this issue without
the interference of unaccountable federal judges.'

Despite the rhetoric, however, legal observers say that the bill has
little chance of passage in the U.S. Senate, and would not survive a
court challenge since it seeks to bypass the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, charged that [the]...
vote was 'politically motivated and amounts to election-time grandstanding.'

Other critics noted that the bill touches upon emotionally divisive
'wedge' issues that fit with the tenor of the election season,
including gay marriage and flag burning.

The Pledge debate, though, is unlikely to go away, even after the
votes are counted in November.

In [2004] June, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to dismiss a lower court
ruling from California that found the 'under God' portion of the
Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. High Court justices
claimed that the plaintiff in the case, California Atheist and
physician Michael Newdow, lacked proper standing to file the suit
which involved his daughter. Newdow remains in a custody battle with
the girl's mother, but has been lining up new plaintiffs to resume the
constitutional challenge." 1